| |
|
SMS: "I don't want to get into the different definitions of terrorism right now, except to acknowledge that it is often unclear precisely what is meant by it. I do think this is a problem if the plan is to fight terrorism in all its forms, but I also think that some terrorist organizations plainly are terrorist organizations, just as some wrong acts plainly are wrong acts."
But these definitions of terrorism and wrong acts are precisely the matter, here.
Others have demonstrated soundly why there is an issue with this justification for invading and occupying Iraq. But, for the sake of response, I'll say my bit -- though I doubt I'll manage to be nearly so succinct as Nick and others who have answered your points.
Nick points out quite prudently that the U.S. is the only nation in history roundly condemned by the World Court. Our very own Mr. Kissinger was a sweet deal, indeed; brokering genocide (or ethnic cleansing, if you prefer) here and there to make a buck, the way I hear it. Indonesia and East Timor. U.S. weapons, U.S. supplies, no U.S. condemnation. Lip service to the tragedy at best -- the U.S. took no responsibility, saw no wrong. At least, not while actual people were actually dying in large numbers. Sort of like Israel today.
As far as terrorist organisations and ultimate wrongs go -- No. There are none of those. Not ones that are conveniently available and obvious to humanity en masse, at least. If there were, there probably wouldn't be "terrorists". These people aren't blowing up embassies in the name of universal wrongdoing -- they're doing it for "The Cause".
From the standpoint of relative morality, it is certainly questionable to suggest that the U.S. has the right to invade and occupy Iraq under the pretense of stemming terrorism. This action is almost certain to inspire funding and recruiting for just about any group advertising a jihad against the U.S. invaders. Impoverished extremists do extreme things with simple methodologies, which is essentially what the Bush administration would like to cram under the definition of "terrorism".
This rationale for war is irrational, the definition for terrorism too broad, and the things being done under the header of said rationale and said definition are so far ridiculous in the extreme.
Attacking a primarily civilian populace with an atom bomb fits the definition of terrorism in accordance with general consensus quite adequately, however. So does the utilization of cluster bombs. So should the practice of starving a nation silly before actually invading it -- in essence, weakening the populace in order to, in turn, destablize the government.
You and I may agree in the abstract -- that murdering non-military personnel is wrong -- but how many Americans do you know who will bring themselves to reconsider the moral conclusions that led to the nuclear conflagrations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Who precisely was Iraq funding? Hamas? The PLO? Both of these groups have been referred to as unequivocally "terrorist" in nature. In Palestine, in much of the Arab world, and even in Europe, many aren't so sure who is and is not a "terrorist". In fact, it is no matter of moral clarity to discern Palestinian "terrorists" from Palestinian "freedom fighters", to most. At times, Israel can't seem to discern between a Palestinian "terrorist" and the uninvolved family of said terrorist. I suppose there are many eyes beholding.
Let's say that terrorism means the deliberate exploitation of what the U.S. calls "soft targets" -- non-military targets which the aggressor feels are somehow critical to the execution of the campaign in question. Terrorism, then, is not solely the province of a stateless force. Terrorism is just another tactic in the field manual for many industrialized nations.
The preceding view of terrorism is closer to historical and international precedent than the sort of political-pop idea of terrorism being applied by the Bush administration.
So under this definition, the U.S. and Israel share responsibility for more terrorist atrocity than any state or non-state since World War II. Under this flagship, is the free world (or maybe just the U.S.) supposed to march merrily into Iraq and beyond, dragging the not-so-free world along with it? Where's the moral clarity here? It is therefore futile, in my mind, to fight *actual* terrorism without condemning U.S. interventionism and U.S. imperialism -- both major contributors and instigators of what we call "terrorism". And if we truly do condemn these two behaviours, then the U.S. must not be allowed to behave like an unruly bully in the schoolyard who's just taken his first punch.
It's counterproductive -- unless the U.S. is just looking for an excuse to grab some land and oil; kick up the value of the dollar. Prevent OPEC from trading in euros. Monopolize the distribution of weapons to restrict the vectors of force to those who the U.S. can bully economically... Which is exactly what the invasion and occupation of Iraq appears to be, from the standpoint of many Iraqis. |
|
|
